NT

OW

lrcj>

.

I*

DISCOURSE

ON

CHRIST'S MEDIATION

BY

SEV. JOHN DEMPSTER, D. D.,
BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE

METHODIST GENERAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE,

CONCORD, N. H.,
1852.

CONCORD:
STEAM POWER PRESS OF MoFAELAND & JENKS,
rear of low's block, main street.

M. G. B. Institute, Concord, N. H., March 15, 1852.
Dear Sir : — The students of the M. G. B. Institute, being desirous of pos
sessing themselves of your very excellent sermon, delivered to them March 13,
and thinking that it would be of especial benefit to the public, do respectfully
solicit a copy for publication. With great respect,
W. H. MOORE, )
I. S. CUSHMAN, } Com.
J. P. FRENCH, )
Bev. J. Dempster, D. D.

Concord, March 16, 1852.
Rev. W. H. Moore, and others, Com. .
Dear Brethren : — In answer to your esteemed note requesting for the
press a copy of my discourse pronounced on the 13th, I reply that as it should be
much improved before it meets the public eye, and as many other duties render
such improvement now impracticable, I beg you will allow me to decline furnish
ing it for publication until providence shall relieve me from some other pressing
claims. Yours truly, J. DEMPSTER.

Beloved Pupils : — The following discourse which you have requested to
print, has been re-written since it was delivered. This has been done to make
it more exactly supply a place in the course of our lectures, in which the want
of leisure has left several chasms. This deficiency is most marked in the want
of amply discussing the great mediatorial principle.
Though it has been found practicable here only to hint at vital topics involved
in this principle, still it is hoped that this suggestive mode of treating them will
not be without interest to you with whom it has been the writer's honor and
pleasure to commune as instructor.
To tou, in this endearing relation, this discourse is dedicated. Others are
less prepared to supply its defects and profit by its hints. As what little re
mained to your teacher of life has long since been consecrated to the improve
ment of his Junior brethren, happy will he be should this brief discussion shed
on your path of investigation a single ray of guiding light.

SERMON.

PSALMS 85 : 10.
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace

HAVE KISSED EACH OTHER.

The scriptures, which commence with history and end with
prophecy, shed, by these means, on the character and condition
of man, the evening and morning light of the sun of righteous
ness. By history they trace the outline of God's dispensations
to priority, by prophecy they sketch his dealings to posterity.
By both they never fail to assume human apostacy and ransom,
as facts written in a thousand inscriptions, on the human allot
ment. To question either of these facts would be to impugn
infinite Justice. For who sees not what must be the operations
of a purely legal government, on such as had insulted its majesty ?
How could a shadow of hope remain for the offender under the
reign of pure law ? The abrogation of government, or the
infliction of penalty, could be the only possible alternative.
Were it the latter, it could not be what it is often called, the
penalty for sin. It could not consist in the mingled cup of bitter
and sweet, so often put in the hand of the sufferer. It must be
a penalty unhke any endured on earth. It must have these
characteristics ; it must be scrupulous in its proportion to guilt,
instant in its infliction on the offender, and perpetual in its unin-
termitted duration. Were it to exceed the offence, a shocked
universe would cry out at the injustice. Were it to come short
of the offence, the whole penalty might for the same reason be
entirely dispensed with. Were it postponed for an hour it might,
on the same principle, be delayed for a million of ages — it might
never be inflicted. Then would the majesty of law be the
scorn of its violators ! Could the infliction have in it a single

mitigating element, then might it utterly change its character,
and be transmuted into pure mercy. By what new element
then does the text assume God's original government over us has
been modified ?
Scrutinize its language ! mark how it brings opposites into
harmony — "Mercy and truth are met together ; righteousness and
peace have kissed each other." When the persons are offenders
which are addressed by these two principles, they are purely an
tagonistic. What can be more palpably so than the claims of
insulted righteousness, and the entreaties of interposing mercy.
The text represents truth on its way to inflict that penalty
which infracted law demanded, and mercy as meeting this avenger
when she came forth to negotiate peace between insult ed right
eousness, and the defenceless offender. It represents this strange
interview as issuing in the harmony of these two opposite ends.
What then is the principle involved in this amicable adjustment ?
What then is the principle assumed in the text ? Is it not the
mediatorial principle, that grand distinctive of the economy
of time ? The entire history of the human race, so far as
it exhibits God as an actor in it, develops this one principle.
Especially has this been the aim of every successive revelation of
his word. These, like scattered lights of various intensity,
streaming from the faint outlines of revelation, all converge and
fall on the mediatorial enterprize. This mediatorial scheme is
far from being a novelty in Jehovah's government. It did not
first start into being at the great advent. The light that beamed
on the eye of faith through the transactions of the Cross, was
not the earliest discovery of this principle ; the scriptures show
that the entire experience of the race, since the first offence, has
been under the sway of this principle ; so that while it is the
distinctive of the New-Testament — while it is the great central
truth of all pulpit discussion, it is absolutely the only key to all
the mysterious dispensations of the Creator to the race. What
ever other meaning the text may involve, we pass it in silence to
devote an undeviating attention to this vicarious principle which
it clearly assumes.
Regarding, as we do, all evangelism as beginning and termin-

ating in this principle, we must insist that in the absence of this
vicarious economy man must either be left without hope, or God
without a government. Thus making the Cross the central object
of whatever should people the field of human vision, we advance
to the discussion of this one great principle. Not to fathom its
depths, or ascertain its precise relations to the persons in the
Godhead, but merely to trace some of its palpable bearings on
human rescue. Because it shoots forward into depths never
fathomable by created powers, we should not be deterred from
tracing the benevolence and grandeur of its relations far enough
to kindle our devotion at the light which it emits. In attempting
this, we proceed to remark —
I. On the personal relations this principle supposes in Jehovah.
It is far from our intention to enter here into those profound
mysteries of the trinity, which all ages will be too short, and all
minds too limited to evolve. But as the doctrine of the divine
plurality of persons is the only possible basis of the restoration
of humanity, a brief reference to it is sternly demanded. The
doctrine of the trinity had not its birth in philosophy, but in
revelation. From the nature of the case the depths of an eternal
nature, in its personal relations, could not be investigated by any
mind out of itself. But after this truth was brought from its
viewless depths, by divine proclamation, — after one of the per
sons had proved the validity of his claims as such — the connec
tion of the doctrine with the wants of the race became palpable.
Nothing can lie within the sphere of christian experience which
has not for its radical idea such an atonement as involves a
trinity. This entire experience is comprised in two states, that
of sin and of grace. " The antagonism between these two is
intense and essential. Though it does not exclude a transition
from one state to the other, it does exclude the possibility of the
latter being a mere development of the former." That our
natural relation to God does not include a state of sin is not less
certain than that it did not exclude the probability of that becom
ing our state. This difference between these two states compels
us to assume a corresponding difference in the mode of divine
agency, in our creation and redemption. The striking difference

6
in the positions which the two relations must place God, in
regard to us, can never admit of their being interchangeable.
While these two classes of relations bind us to the same being,
they connect, us to different persons in that being. They require
not opposite beings, not different beings, but different persons in
the same being.
Should our restoration be deemed practicable on our part, by a
restorer who should act on us merely by doctrine and example, how
could itbe practicable on the part of the offended majesty of govern
ment ? There would still remain provoked hostility, unappeased
wrath. The difference, then, between creation and redemption
can never resemble that between creation and preservation.
The divine agency is doubtless various in creation, preserva
tion and co-operation, but this variety allows the third to be com
prehended in the second, and both the second and third to be
included in the first. All these are one protracted act variously
modified. This can never be affirmed of creation and redemption.
The latter, like preservation, can never be resolved into creation.
The distinction between the work of making and restoring is not
less real than the personal distinction between him who made
satisfaction, and him to whom it was made.
What those newly developed relations in the Godhead were,
as indicated by the fact of redemption, was among the earliest
inquiries to which the christian mind felt the mightiest impulse.
What then was the direct result of that inquiry ? Was it not
the very divinity of the world's re storer ? Did not the
christian mind in one voice give itself utterance at the great
council of Nice ? It pronounced Christ, not a prophet, not an
angel, not the highest created nature placed at the head of all
worlds, but it proclaimed him consuhstantial with the Father
Almighty. The faithful records of the early church show
Christ's filial relation to have been a far more absorbing inquiry
than the personal relations of the Spirit. In harmony with this,
is the place they respectively occupy in the New Testament.
Here where every truth is made prominent, as it is vitally con
nected with human ransom, the Father and the Son are much
oftener placed together as two, than the Father, and the Son,

and the Spirit are as three. The reason is palpable, as the per
sonality and office of the Spirit must ever be determined after
the analogy of the person and office of Christ.
So imperative is the demand made by redemption for these
personal relations in the adorable One, that no depth of inscruta
bility which they involve should deter us from investigation.
We not merely repeat them as facts, with the deepest emphasis,
but we dwell on their profound relations to the redemptive scheme
with the highest raptures.
But our limits require us to pass from this principle involved
in the subject to observe —
II. The moral state in ivhich the text supposes our race.
This may be noticed — 1st. Chiefly in its objective aspect.
As every particular truth rests on some general truth, we may
trace the several facts of human experience to some principle to
which they are all referable. The sufferings of humanity are an
every where present fact ; they are the sable pall which invests all
history. But they are a sequence connected with an antecedent.
They are resolvable into the sinfulness of the species. This
sinfulness bears the relation of cause 'to human sufferings, and
has far more extensive relations than they. But this being in
dubitably casual can be sustained by evidence no less palpable
than they. But not only is its invincible evidence found in that
which proves the effect, it is attested by individual conscious
ness ; — it is proclaimed by the inspired scriptures ; — it is made
manifest by the criminal code of every nation in all time ; — it
is assumed by God's administration to the race. But sufferings
not only evince sin to be their cause — they point to the indigna
tion of God towards the sinner. Whatever arises merely out of
the workings of the system is unquestionably the expression of
the author's mind. If, then, it be a fact which challenges con
tradiction, that such are the workings of the individual and social
systems, that vice inflicts misery, who can doubt whether God is
offended with the vicious ? We are then intimately acquainted
with an ever-present class of events which prove God indignant
towards man.

8
But how can an argument for vicarious interposition be con
structed of such a material ? This state of human guilt might,
indeed, argue man's utter abandonment of God, as the first sin of
the angels proved their overthrow. If in their case not n-shadow
of remedy was interposed, how could the same cause operate
otherwise on man ? How could the storm of utter overthrow
crush angel hopes, and the gleamings of mercy kindle the hopes
of equally rebellious man ?
But other facts than sufferings exist in human experience.
These are not only various from the others but opposite to them.
They consist of blessings ; these are of different degrees and of
many kinds. The reality of these are just as unquestionable as
that of our sufferings. Nor can we mistake any more in refer
ring our blessings to God's compassion than in tracing our
suffering to his displeasure. Indeed our continued existence,
under the present government, is proof that God's bosom is the
seat of such regard for us. Did He deal with us merely as
offenders, how could he bestow upon us a single benefit ? How
could he continue us under a government which is plainly con
structed to uphold virtue ? How could his viewless agency be in
ever-sleeples3 operation- around us, pressing malign events into
our service ? Could this shower of blessings, which falls on our
whole life, consist with a retributive state ? Were our state not
probationary could all these intense gleamings of mercy mingle
with the gloom .of our sufferings ? These questions should be
urged with trumpet tongue. They demand an answer of the
profoundest significancy, — an answer which no rejector of the
atonement will ever be able to furnish. Here then are two classes
of opposing facts dispensed by the same government to the same
character. One of these is adapted only to the guilty, the other
to none but the innocent. The one is expressive only of wrath,
the other of mere benignity. Who that denies redemption will
grapple with this problem ? It is propounded to the whole uni
verse for solution. It is this, how can a God of justice deal, at
the same moment, with man as though he were both innocent and
guilty ? Who that has an adequate perception of perfect gov
ernment will dare to accept the challenge suggested by this

question ? It flashes on us, with the power of vision, that under
a government of law these two parts of God's dispensation can
never be harmonious. Let us attend then to the guiding light
which their very collision generates.. We have seen that the
resistless conclusion arising from the first class alone, is the
remediless ruin of the race, and that it is just as certain that the
second class could never come to a rebel under the government
he had insulted. Still both classes are administered to our race,
and this momentous fact proclaims atoning interference, with the
ancient course of broken law. The gloom of despair, in which
the former class engulfs us, is broken by the star of hope which
the latter class kindles before us. The point of their harmony
is the proclamation of our redemption. The entrancing object
on which their blended lights converge, is God honoring his in
sulted government, in the very act of rescuing his rebellious
subjects. These proofs that he loves man and hates sin gave
early certainty to the hope that he would exhibit his character in
the mingled splendor of both these fights combined.
Numerous as the other proofs are that man is fallen, they are
not less so that he is not abandoned of his sovereign. Nor is
there a particle more proof that he can never restore himself,
than there is that a bright and potent agency is at work to re
store him.
Other branches of government, involving the relations of man
to man, and of man to physical nature, indicate a moral pro
vision for him. That the author of man has placed him under a
system which works his improvement, is impossible to doubt. Of
this there are a thousand unmistakable evidences. Progress is
alike written, in shining characters, on man's mental structure,
on his social conditions, and on his relations to physical nature.
The co-relations between the mind, and literature, and the arts,
and sciences, are intrinsically such as to ensure advancement
when unobstructed.
Such is the system that the inventions of genius go not to the
caves of oblivion amidst all the waring winds and waves which
menace them. They survive the age that gave them birth, to en
rich unarrived generations. Thus the intellectual wealth of priority
pours its ever accumulating stream into the lap of posterity.

10
Now is it credible that this ample provision would be made
for man's intellectual and social nature, in the absence of all
means to improve his moral nature ? Who can look on this ever-
brightning scene, which the system opens on man as a being of
thought, and of society, and yet doubt whether provision be
made for him as a moral being — as an eternal worshipper ? God
cannot have a profounder interest in our temporal improvement
than in our endless elevation. It is impossible that his care
should be greater for our lower powers than for our "moral
nature, in which we most resemble his own highest perfections.
Were we to settle this problem by questioning his government,
the whole genius of it would answer with the power of ten
thousand negatives. It would proclaim, as by a trumpet blast,
that God regards all our other improvements subsidiary to the
purity and elevation of our moral nature.
Now the mighty corrollary is this : there is not in the entire
system a provision for the advancement of man, which does not
demonstrate a vicarious remedy for his soul.
That same government which would provide for the one, by
natural means, would provide for the other by supernatural
means. For if one needs only natural provision, and the other
supernatural, then it. would not be made for the former, unless
the other were made for the latter. This then is the sweeping
conclusion to which we are irresistibly pressed ; that the har
mony and accomplishment of the Divine plans now in operation,
before our eyes, absolutely require a vicarious interference for
man's moral rescue.
Secondly, confirmatory of these suggestions, are the evidences
which arise from man viewed subjectively. A supernatural
remedy for man supposes in him a susceptibility to receive it,
and on the other hand this susceptibility would presuppose such
a remedy. Were either wanting, the other would be impossible.
It is a question of fact, and therefore admits of evidence, —
whether a craving for the union of the divine and human springs
from the bosom of our common nature. The results reached by
investigating the religions of the race is, that every one of them
aims at this great idea ; — that this is the aspiration "of man.

11
And if we look still deeper it will appear that there never was
a religious idea, seated in an individual mind, which did not
suppose some connection between its subject and his author.
The very name of religion is only used to signify this. But how
the divine and human should be brought into connection has ever
been deemed one of the profound problems of the universe.
The history of man shows that his unaided powers have never
been competent to solve it ; — that this grand idea reposed in its
concealment after thousands of years of research. It was re
served for the mission of Christianity to open our way to its
depths, by the personal exhibitions of the Redeemer. This was
sought by orientalism but never found. That confounded the
Creator with the creation. In all its attempts to establish relations
between them it swallowed up the workman in the work. It is
true that orientalism had its incarnations. The second member
in the trimarti assumed flesh. Vishnu became man. But was
this, indeed, an incarnation ? Was it a union of the human
with the divine ? Did not Krisnu hasten to divest himsglf offiis
humanity and to return quickly to his native heaven ? Did the
expedient diminish one hair's breadth the separating space be
tween man and God ? Was not a stern dualism, or universal
absorption, the dread gulf in which the entire system resolved
itself ? The theosophy of India so confounded the moral with
the natural, the spiritual with the material, as perpetually to
oscillate between the wintry system of materialism and the in
fatuating dream of idealism.
Nor has the theosophy of Greece advanced a single step be
yond that of the east, in bringing man into union with the Supreme.
The attempt of the west to raise man into Gods, — to wrap the
earth-born in adorable perfections, issued in leaving them in a
Godless world, or in making God a mere abstraction, and all else
a brilliant illusion. Thus did the wisdom of the west, end where
that of the east began ; and these two divisions of civilized
humanity, having commenced at opposite extremes, have run the
entire cycle of unaided thought, and have left not a hand's
breadth for a future explorer.
No where among men, excepting in the Hebrew theocracy, was

12
the personality of God kept distinct from his works, or his jus
tice recognized as absolutely immaculate. This theism brought
forth that perfection with cloudless luster, and solved some of the
deepest problems of the old world. The tide of luster which it
poured on the everlasting distinction between the Divine and
human was an indispensable pre-requisite to perceive the ground
of their union. Otherwise the difference could never be palpa
ble between blending them and connecting them. By the
theocracy, then, was taken one mighty stride towards the solution
of a problem, which had challenged and baffled all human in
tellects since the apostacy of man.
But that prophetic series of ever brightening truth did no
more than lay the foundation for this union, the mode of accom
plishing it was left in concealment. How could that grand prin
ciple, underlying the incarnation, be fully disclosed without
periling the national faith in the unity of God ? Such a
development could only be safely made in the restorer's character
after he became personally present. Then, and not till then,
should his identity, both with the nature of man, and with the
Sternal essence, burst on human convictions.
In vain did the Alexandrian Philo attempt to reconcile the
logos of Plato with the debar of Meses. The one was a figment
of philosophy, the other an incipient revelation from heaven of the
infinite word. Equally lost was the labor of Origen in striving
to identify the logos of the Grecian philosopher with the logos
of John the evangelist. The logos of both Testaments stands
utterly alone in the universe, in the high attributes of his
Messianic character. No more can a verbal word be substituted
for & personal word than can a thing be interchangeable with a
mind. Thus, while the pantings of all nations evince their aspi
rations after union with the Supreme, their failure to secure it is
equally proved by the result of the experiment. Though Chris
tianity makes noclaim to have directly originated these aspirations,
it does claim entire originality in throwing fight on the mode of
attaining their object.
But what is that grand object aimed at by the incarnation ?
The great end divides itself into two branches ; one regards the

13
insulted majesty of God, the other the lapsed powers of man.
But distinct as are these two objects, their accomplishment re
quired the same kind of agency to be put in requisition. Har
mony could be restored between the broken law and offending
agent only by meeting the claims of the one and restoring the
powers of the other. No otherwise eould adequate scope be
given to both justice and mercy. To have neglected the claims
of either would quench the hope of restoration. The total im
practicability of the divine law, without such a scheme, is itself
an imperative demand for the atonement. This was found not
only in the unsatisfied claims of the government, but in the utter
helplessness of the offender.
Should a single individual imagine his own unaided power
commensurate with the divine < claims on him, let him hasten to
measure that power by the test of experiment. Let him do it
under the combined influence of the loftiest motive and most
vigorous purpose. But let him do it with a full appreciation of
bis supreme obligations ; — that they extend to the perfect love
of God and to a fervid affection for men. His first attempt is
to abstain from outward violations of the law, his next to perform
externally, its requirements ; success crowns the attempt, and
hope flashes on the enterprise. But his real work is not yet
commenced. That lies on a loftier height. It consists in his
generating in his own heart supreme love to the supreme God.
Now mark the depth of skill with which he approaches this task,
knowing that conception determines feelings, he draws a bright
picture of the Infinite character, he clothes it in that radiency
in which benignity alone is prominent ; — he sees the Father of
all delighting only in the abounding bliss of his creatures. In
tensely admiring this beautiful side of the divine character he
waits for corresponding affection to spring up in himself. For a
moment a pleasing emotion flits over the surface of his soul.
He rushes by a single bound to the conclusion that the boon is
gained, that the law is fulfilled. At that instant his eye catches
a view of infinite holiness. It flashes with confounding bright
ness. Its light is terrifically intJSiise, in contrast with his black
mass of guilt on which it falls. His vision changes, his terrified

14
eye is averted. Horror-struck he shrinks back from the glory
that attracted him ; despair gathers around his enterprise, and
in utter hopelessness he abandons it forever. This sad experi
ment is tried for universal humanity. Never can there be a
single exception to its result. The same principle must ever
operate in the same manner as to every specific duty to God.
And this fatal result is doubly secured by the task being equally
impracticable of uprooting evil dispositions, as that of implanting
holy ones. This heart, whose experience we have traced, is a
type of all unchanged hearts. The same experiment could have
no other issue if tried at all the periods and by all the millions
"of our race. The demand for the supernatural aid of a divine
atonement is then imperious.
From this hasty glance at our felt need of atonement, we pass
to notice —
III. The applicability of Christ's vicarious scheme to the cir
cumstances and powers of man.
1. The radical idea of the atonement is found in the personal
character of the Redeemer, so that a mind previously ac
quainted with redemption could have foretold the demand for his
two-fold nature ; or one fully comprehending his mysterious per
son, could have predicted the sublime achievement of his
sacrificial death. But if the atoning enterprise of Christ
demanded such a personal character in him, it also supposed his
alleged relations in the trinity. These three facts then, the
state of man, the character of his Redeemer, and the trinity of
Jehovah, are so connected as to form necessary links of the
same chain. Not that our object would lead to the slightest
attempt to discuss the profound problem of the trinity — that
demands a wider range than is assigned to this discourse. It is
merely introduced here as a sublime fact which every peculiarity
of the gospel compels us to recognize. The first adaptation we
shall notice of the atonement to human powers, is in the evidence
of which its nature admits. The special light, in which the
church has ever contemplated "the atonement, is not in that of a
doctrine but in that of a fact. Had the deep foundations which

15
support the Christian scheme been merely doctrines and not facts,
its claimed originality might be encumbered with the most
agitating doubts. But reposing as it does on a great fact, it is
impossible that its origin should be out of itself.
No religion, out of the Bible, can claim this peculiarity.
Christianity being a religion of facts, is a religion of evidence. I
In this distinctive it stands alone on the records of the race.
The great scriptural truth, that appropriating faith comes by
hearing — by a vocal declaration of an authenticated fact, as
sumes that the involved evidence is addressed to reason, by
which the hearer is to judge of its validity.
Such is the genius of Christianity — and of that older revolution
which prepared its way, — that it addresses to our reason more
than one class of evidence. It relies on external proof, such as
miracles and prophecy ; — on internal evidence, such as the
harmony of the provision of the system with the exigencies of
the race ; — on collateral evidence, whose light from several
points falls obliquely on the Christian argument. Such is the
nature of the facts to be proved, and the doctrines they support,
as to admit of all this variety of evidence to the largest amount.
Let the peculiarity of this scheme be especially considered in its
relation to miracles. Of all the impostures and superstitions
which have ever imposed on the credulity of man, not one has
dared to establish itself on the evidence of miracles. After they
had become firmly seated in the public confidence, resort was,
no doubt, had to pretended miracles. This was for specific pur
poses, and not, in one single instance, for primary proof. In
this lofty claim, therefore, revealed truth has no rival, — no com
petitor, through the whole range of human agents. Nor would
the result be less triumphant were a comparison instituted be
tween the redemptive scheme and all others, in point of internal
evidence. The contriving skill of the eternal Mind is scarcely j
more palpable in the numberless congruities in the fabric of I
nature, than are the adaptations of redemption to its proclaimed !
purposes. These different classes of evidence consult both the
kind of truth they prove, and the structure of the mind which
they address. The truth, confessedly in its nature, transcends

16
• our intellect, but not in its evidence. Here it is perfectly on a
level with our powers.
Its truth having been found in its evidence, our constitution
prompts us to seek its congruity with the known condition of
man and the revealed character of God. Hence the first class —
external evidence — is the only possible ultimate foundation of
internal evidence. But though this could not exist without that,
yet that by no means supercedes this.
2. But if the harmony be striking between the vicarious pro
vision and man's rational nature, it will be found no less so be
tween that provision and man's moral nature.
His moral nature is the strongest side of his character — the
side on which he especially comes in contact with his Maker —
the side on which right and wrong, merit and demerit, never fail
to address him. It is that sublime attribute of all mind, without
which no moral government could sway the universe. Any
system of religion, therefore, which could be availing, must ad
dress this faculty of our nature. The same necessity of our
having within, this test of right and wrong, exists why a restor
ing scheme should be adjusted to it.
The scriptural appeals to conscience leave no room to doubt
whether a lofty place be assigned to it in the moral history of the
universe, or whether its functions should be scrupulously consult
ed in arranging a plan of human rescue. This should be done
that the consciousness of sin might be an assertion of the holi
ness of God ; that the voice of conscience might be merely the
echo of his who condemns sin, and the approval of conscience
the assurance of his smile who made that faculty to sympathize
in his own blessedness. Who, then, shall adequately describe
this crowning faculty, which makes God adorable and man ac
countable ? In the mind divine it is his moral nature ; in creat-
; ed natures it is the vicegerent of Jehovah. In us it consists of
; that discriminating power of the intellect, and of that suscepti-
/ bility of the heart of accompanying emotions, which are ever
i present on the perception of right, or wrong. As this tremen-
| dous power of our constitution never approved of evil, as such,
or disapproved of good, as such, when well enlightened, it can

17
never acquit the offender unless God acquits him. In thus taking
sides with eternal justice, the offender's conscience demands, and
must forever demand satisfaction, while nature yearns for refief
from this demand. The correspondence is therefore perfect be
tween these claims and wants of our nature, and the two-fold
provisions of the divine atonement.
It silenced the demand of justice by the peerless agonies of
the sufferer. It gave scope to clemency by removing the bar to
mercy. It is precisely in the blended splendor of this two-fold
light that all the divine dispensations to man have shone. All
these dispensations which have emanated to us, from His throne,
proclaim Him in the double character of a just God and an un
matched Saviour. Look at the strange transactions of Eden ;
were they not wreathed in the splendid robe of these blended
lights ? The thunderings of justice had not ceased muttering
when, from the lips of the stern judge,, breathed the balmy lan
guage of promise. Nor was the double system of the Mosaic
¦code less expressive of those perfections which, when they
regarded offenders, must ever be antagonistic. The moral law
could never speak but in one language. Its dreadful utterance
was " the soul that sinneth shall die." No mere power in any
world could hush this terrific voice. But, to this moral law, that
of sacrificing was utterly antagonistic. This assumed a possible
remedy, and, by every victim and flame of the altar shadowed it
forth. These same two systems of justice and mercy, of law and
atonement, journeyed hand in hand through the entire period of
the prophetic age. And when the full and final development of
this mysterious side of the divine character was made, in the
closing drama of Christ's ministry, how startling was the mingled
scene of wrath and grace. The terror and rapture were alike
extreme, as awakened by the lurid flashes of indignation against
sin, and the gleamings of mercy toward the sinner. As was fit,
never before was either so intense as at this closing service of
the great sacrifice. Thus, through every great progressive step
of God's dispensations to the race, the demand of justice, and
the provisions of mercy have respectively corresponded to the
claims and wants of conscience. Now this entire correspondence
2

18
between these two-fold workings of our moral nature, and the
double scheme of God's dispensations, banishes the last doubt
whether one was constructed with reference to the other.
3. But not only would the redemptive scheme consult our
moral constitution, but also our emotional nature. The truths
of restoration, and the character of the restorer being essentially
identical, the same incentives were demanded to embrace both.
Such are our inward laws that mind never voluntarily acts until
the affections are moved. This being the mental order, the af
fections can never be at the direct command of the will. Now,
as without the vigorous exercise of these, no spiritual reformation
is possible, what must be the character of that object which
elicits them ? that is, the character of that object without which
reformation is impossible ? That, beyond all question, must be
clothed with love awakening incentives. The problem to be solved,
then, was not merely who shall undertake for us, that is sufficient
to cancel the terrible claims which were against us, but that also
shall have attractions to allure the offender. If these, then, be
found in the Son of Man, he must be our Redeemer. If in his
personal character, and in the stupendous work he achieved, love
be the master principle ; if this, above all other beauties of his
character, was conspicuous in him, then are the affections of the
restored most effectually addressed. At this point we have
reached the question of fact, and may well demand what feature
in the restorer's character could be so changed as to give him an
intenser loveliness ? Glance over the bright array of his super
human virtues, and point to that which admits of improvement.
It was to his enemies, foaming with rage, that he gave this
challenge, " which of you convinceth me of sin ?" Every coun
tenance fell ; every tongue was still ; every heart was smitten.
Indeed his whole history reiterates, by a thousand melting deeds,
the sentiment of these, his own expressions : " I have called you
friends ;" " I lay down my life for you." Do not his supreme
beauties of character place him, in his claim to our affections^
beyond the reach of rivalship ? Here, therefore, is that won
drous congruity between the emotions of the nature to be re
stored, and his qualities who was to be the restorer.

19
But in addition to these natural attractives in Christ, there
was demanded, in his achievements, that which provided for an
other side of our character — for our guilt. While this remains
uncanceled, affection is impossible for him, against whom it has
been perpetrated. That rebellion against God, involving guilt,
makes the remembrance of him painful. The offender being an
enemy, unavoidably perceives in him the reflection of his own
hostility. His guilt must either be removed, or God can never be
the object of his affections. So long as he is without harmony,
with an acquitting God, must his guilt be an invincible obstacle to
the stream of his affections flowing to him.
The attempt to inspire piety towards God while guilt was on
the conscience, has ever been the impossible task, both of super
stition and philosophy. Dead to the ehangeless fact that a state
of guilt, and of aeceptible serviee are antagonisms that no power
can reconcile, these systems have labored to produce the one
while the other was in full force. This was toiling for the end, not
in the absence of the means only, but in the face of the fiercest
opposites. The only goal to which this path conducts is back to
the place of beginning. It should never escape us that love for
God must ever have for its antecedent a freedom from guilt.
These through all time must be linked together in this order.
When a free, full, and instant pardon of sin flows from him,
against whom it was committed, then, and not till then, does
love kindle towards this source of benignity. What could be a
more stem impracticability than a command to love God, without
this loveliness in Christ, and this removal of guilt from man
through Christ ? But the greatest conceivable facility is given
to obedience by the loveliness of the restorer, and the pardon
securing efficacy of his atonement. What could propitiate the
offended majesty in the heavens, but redemption by price ? What
could remove the obduracy of the offender, but the benignity of
the restorer, and his redemption by power ?
The imperious demand, then, for an alluring character in the
restorer, and pardoning power in his redemption, is made, alike
by the infracted government, and by the nature of the offender.
That a person never loves another in whom he perceives no love-

20
liness, is equally clear as that no effect arises without a cause.
But when loveliness is contemplated as imbuing his whole char
acter, it unavoidably elicits the admirer's love. And when the
beholder is the object of the affection he admires, his heart never
rests till it reciprocates with a growing intensity. No surer will
the magnetized needle turn towards the pole than will this heart
towards its object. But were affections at the command of the
will, attractions in the restorer might well be dispensed with, as
in their absence the affections of the heart would be according to
the vigor of the purpose. Now, that will has no such dominion
over affection is the attestation of universal experience. Who
ever attempted to kindle the affections of the heart by the power
of command, or to will into existence the qualities that are loved ?
Where, in all history, has the love of the heart ever been at
tracted by an object in which it perceived no excellence ? But
though the flow of affection is never at the bidding of the will,
the volitions of the will are ever at the promptings of affection.
Now what can love be but an entirely disinterested emotion ?
What other character can belong to the acts to which love prompts ?
Having reached, then, the disinterestedness of this emotion, can
we doubt whether more pleasure is taken in gratifying its object,
or in self-gratification ? This then is that mental state, and that
alone, which will secure supreme submission and obedience to
God. In this state the will of the subject bows by no forced
submission to the will of the sovereign ; affection gives winged
speed to all acts of obedience. Could obedience be secured by
any other principle, it would be slavery to the subject, and mock
ery to the sovereign. The soul of moral obedience wouhLbe ut
terly wanting, and only its empty name remain. The principle
of outward homage would be inward selfishness. When love
finds no superior object, out of the bosom it warms, self must be
the centre of all its movements, and piety is an impossibility.
As, then, love alone carries its subject out of himself, — is the
only bar to self-idolatry, — that only can secure obedience to him
who commands it. Never till we love him can we keep his com
mandments, and such is our mental structure that happiness is
impossible, in the absence of an object worthy of our homage.

21
In the want of such an object, every human heart falls under the
action of that law, by which selfishness is invincibly woe.
In the light of these facts who could desire the character of
the Redeemer, or the scheme he has originated, to be other than
it is ? Who would dare to substitute a single feature in either,
and thus peril the hope of the race ? What other expedient
could have opened the way of our return to the bosom of offend
ed majesty? or given to the restorer the heart of an elder
brother, which should beat forever for us on the throne of the
universe ? What other could have blended in a restorer that
living tenderness and dying love whose mingled beauties adorn
Christ? In a few closing remarks we observe :
1st. That in executing the mediatorial scheme Christ passed
through all the states to which humanity is appointed. He was
clad in our nature, died in our nature, and resumed that nature
from death, and entered with it the viewless abodes of spirits ;
and will continue through wasteless ages to be clothed in the
same robe of humanity. But, unlike us, he was voluntary in be
coming man ; was an agent prior to his birth. His work — not
like ours — was not to honorably finish a probationary career, but
to relieve those who had failed to do it ; not merely to keep the
eternal law, but to answer its demands on those who had broken
it. His relation to the race ceased not at death, but by that
event became more vital and influential. We therefore view his
enterprise as the great central event of man's history,- — " as the
pivot on which the destiny of the race was turned from everlast
ing despair to inconceivable hope ; an event for which all man's
prior history was preparatory ; of which all his future history
shall be retrospective." An " event which must ever stand out in
the solitude of its own preeminence, as the birth scene of a new
era." 2d. We next remark that Christ is the only meritorious offering
ever presented to God, in man's behalf. That there was an utter
want of efficacy in all offerings which preceded Christ's, will by
a few simple statements appear indubitable. The demand for a

22
meritorious offering originated in the relation of sin to the gov
ernment it violated. Now, because the perpetration of sin in
volved personal agency, an atonement for sin must involve such
agency. But in what offering that ever smoked on the divine
altar was this found ? It is true, freedom from guilt is predicated
of animal offerings, but this is true merely because the brute
nature is too low to contract guilt. For the same reason when
its holiness is affirmed it is merely of a negative and not of a
positive character. As only a personal agent can sin, and none
but the offender's equivalent can be his substitute, all the Patri
archal and Mosaic offerings must have failed to be of an atoning
character. Animals might have been much higher than they
are and yet be without what is most lofty in the offender's endow
ments. They appertain to the sphere of unfree, impersonal
nature. Man belongs to the sphere of free personal being.
That want of those very elements which makes sin impossible
makes an atonement for sin impossible. As the former cannot
be committed without unrestrained volition, so the latter cannot
be accomplished without the same lofty endowment. This
requisition involves the necessity of the offering presenting itself.
The priest that officiates, and the sacrifice he offers, must be
identical. As the demand for a substitute is not arbitrary, but
rests on the internal necessity and ground of the case, so must it
be with the character of the substitute. ' This could no more be
arbitrary than the plan of substitution.
This essential unity in the delinquent and in the offering for
him is grounded on the demand for their reciprocity of nature.
All sin-offering prior to Christ, therefore, must have been
deeply stamped with defects — defects which were essential, such
as were intrinsic — incapable of being supplied by mere appoint
ment, though that were made by the highest authority in the
universe. All these offerings then being without intrinsic efficacy,
must have been one perpetual reiterated prophecy of that " one
offering," which thus sent its shadow before.
We remark finally, that the reference made in this discourse
to first principles is demanded by the spirit of our times. The

23
rush upon us of error from abroad — error that can turn matter
to mind or mind to matter — that can reduce the stupendous
character of Jesus to that of a mere mortal, and measure his
redeeming scheme by that of an ordinary reformer, demands a
recurrence to first principles. Nor is the demand less impera
tive — made by the extreme shallowness of mental action on
spiritual themes. We mourn no lack of vague philosophy, of
sickly sentimentalism, of poetic piety, or of pompous ritualism.
With these our country, our age abounds.
But the defect is startling in pure evangelism — in the religion
of the conscience — in deep, searching, far-reaching thought on
heavenly themes. How few deposit the powerful truth of
Jehovah in the inner sanctuary of the soul — in that temple of
God, the spirit. How few commune, in that awful recess, with
the ancient of days, and find " the kingdom of heaven within
them." How fearful the majority that permit conscience — that focal point
of all spiritual nfluenceinman — to become dark, and chilled, and
dead, by a deep-seated doubt of the supernatural. Then comes
that agitating question, do not the holiest attainments of created
mind well up from the depths of that mind itself? Then comes
the next step ; if there be in the universe a living God he is
inaccessible to man. Then is completed the bewildering career,
by the persuasion that this God is a mere principle, blind as the
philosophic fate of antiquity.
To stem these desolating tendencies, on what shall the advo
cates of truth rely ? . They must fall back on first principles.
They must firmly plant themselves on these eternal verities. They
must show — clear as vision — how the natural administration of
the world requires the spiritual — how by being the -maker of
man, God proves himself to be his Redeemer — how by gifting
him with mind he must have intended to commune with that
mind — now the rich provision for our physical nature demon
strates a loftier one for our moral nature — how all that has been
divinely uttered by promise, denounced by threatening, or fore
stalled by prophecy, are evinced to be the reality of the future,
by facts which have formed the history of the past.